People v. Hicks

California Court of Appeal Feb 10, 1944 No. Crim. 3760Published

Before: McCOMB

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a witness who feigns complicity in a crime to detect the perpetrator is not an accomplice, and therefore their testimony does not require corroboration under Penal Code section 1111. The evidence was found sufficient to support the conviction for bribery.

Issues

Whether a witness who feigns complicity in a crime is an accomplice requiring corroboration under Penal Code section 1111.
Whether the testimony of the witness was inherently improbable.
Whether the corpus delicti was sufficiently proven.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“one who feigns complicity in the commission of a crime for the purpose of detecting and prosecuting the perpetrator thereof is not an accomplice and his testimony need not be corroborated”

“the testimony of witness McDonald as set forth above was not inherently improbable and therefore it was sufficient to sustain the findings of the trial court that defendant was guilty of asking for, and receiving a bribe.”

McCOMB, J.

From a judgment of guilty of asking and receiving a bribe, after trial before the court without a jury, defendant appeals. There is also an appeal from the order denying the motion for a new trial.

The evidence being viewed in the light most favorable to the People (respondent) and pursuant to the rules set forth in

People

Pianezzi,

42 Cal.App.2d 265, 269 [108 P.2d 732], the essential facts are:

Mr. J. A. McDonald testified that on January 14, 1943, defendant, a police officer, and Officer Antunez went to a service station operated by J. A. McDonald at 3709 Whittier Boulevard, County of Los Angeles. Defendant told Mr. McDonald they had a report he was “booking” at the station. This Mr. McDonald denied. Whereupon defendant said, “We have a report that you are booking here and I am warning you.” The officers then left the service station. The following day about 3 p.m., defendant again entered the service station and told Mr. McDonald, “Well, still got a report on this place.” Mr. McDonald replied, “Well, you evidently have the wrong place.”

Sometime after this second meeting, defendant called Mr. McDonald on the telephone and said, “Watch your step, Central Vice will be out to pay you a visit. ’ ’

About the 28th of January, 1943, Mr. McDonald was arrested by Officers Ginder and Tripp and was charged with bookmaking. His arraignment was set for February 17, 1943. Before noon on February 3, 1943, defendant again went to Mr. McDonald’s service station and said to him, “Well, I warned you.” Defendant then said, “I have been detailed for the last two weeks at San Pedro. I am back in this territory, in this division, permanently now and things will be

[861]

different. My skipper wants to know who your boss is. We want to line this place up. We want to know who you are working for; I’d like to contact your boss. ’ ’ Defendant then told Mr. McDonald he wanted to be taken care of and that fifty dollars would be just about right. Mr. McDonald told him to return at “high noon” and he would put him in touch with the boss. Defendant returned at the time indicated and Mr. McDonald told him he was unable to contact the boss, but would make a definite appointment for 12 o ’clock the next day. Mr. McDonald then contacted Lieutenant Johnston (defendant’s superior officer) and Officer Ginder and received from them five $5.00 bills. The officers retained a written notation of the serial number of each of the bills.

People v. Hicks

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief